Nowadays the minimum weight is with the driver's weight included, but before 1995 this wasn't the case. I can't remember anorexic drivers before the adoption of the current minimum weight system.



A minimum weight isn't required from teams using exotic materials, nor does it stop teams from using it. If the minimum weight was to stop teams from using exotic materials, banning a number of those wouldn't have been necessary.
The same could be said about the crash impact. Although Formula 1 enforces a minimum weight rule since the 1960s, the introduction of crash test was still required.

I can't help you if you don't understand a simple requirement for the energy management system. In dual torque mode the software has to mesh the ICE torque with the electric torque of the MGUK. Obviously that ratio cannot be fixed over the duration of the race as the load level of the battery (ES) will vary with conditions such as safety cars, pit stops and climatic conditions (rain). So the software always has to take a look at the energy level in the battery and adjust the amount of electric torque accordingly. That is a simple necessity for the energy management software which isn't too difficult to understand.


The single turbo is primarily specified to keep the exhaust frequency as high as possible but also restricts the design options in order to make all brands of power trains equal for installation purposes. That is the reason IMO why they are very specific with the location of the turbo unit and the requirement of having the exhaust ports on the outside.


To avoid a spending war mainly. Effectively the cars will carry less fuel weight which will compensate for the higher minimum weight.

Until I quit a few months ago I was a development engineer for one of the worlds premier high power turbo engine consultancies.

Key thing in turbo exhaust manifolds is that you are trying to preserve as much of the gas velocity created by the high pressures in the cylinder flowing through the ports when the exhaust valve cracks open. You want as much of that high velocity jet of gas to get to the turbine as possible - and it is this energy that is often wasted by packaging compromised designs.

To do that you want to limit the manifold volume that will otherwise bleed energy off as it is pumped up and then releases pressure (very inefficient). Limit bend radii, have smooth confluences, flow passages about same area as port openings without expansions and contractions etc.

You also want to limit the stuffing caused by a blowdown pulse at ex valve opening feeding back into cylinders at ex valve close. On a V6 with single turbo this means keep the two banks as separate as possible, feed each bank to feed into a separate nozzle for the turbine (a twin scroll turbine), just as is often done on 4 cylinder engines with end cylinders and center cylinders feeding into separate scrolls.

So my thoughts on the Scarb mockup:
#1 the two banks should feed into separate scrolls to reduce stuffing, not a 6-way collector.
#2 not particularly important to keep all runners same length, particularly in a high speed engine where they are excessively long already. Make each runner as short as possible.
#3 even though they are generally crap, in this case the long flow path and high volume likely means that a log manifold is probably better than 3 separate runners on each bank.

#4 Looking at that engine the exhaust runners could be halved in length by placing ex ports on top of head (just outside the bore center line) and looping them over head into the middle of the V. With scroll inlets on turbine housing rotated 180° apart from each other. That will be the most efficient solution, with the shortest smoothest flow paths in a pulse separated exhaust manifold, but will make the head design trickier. With fuel flow restriction and turbo-compounding F1 will be all about extracting the greatest possible efficiency from the engine.

Blueprinting usually causes a spending war, as the regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and to stay competitive teams have to get closer to that point. However, I thought the RRA was considered as a solution?

I don't have the knowledge to argue any of that, but is it all compatible with the regulations? Scarbs probably isn't an engine guru, but whatever he does is fed by the regulations. (I think)

Glad to have you on board

The problem with having the exhausts on the outside and looping over the cam covers to the turbo on the inside of the vee is how to arrange the inlet runners without having them influenced by the exhaust heat.

As for cars being designed around a driver.
When Gerhard Berger drove for McLaren-Honda he had difficulties to fit properly in the car that was almost designed around the smaller Senna.
The best ever example however wasn't an F1 car but an Indycar.

Since 1988 Porsche had a very tiny driver, Teo Fabi, when they went to two cars in 1990, they hired John Andretti, who was as small, if not smaller then Teo. Than enabled March to design an ultracompact car that was juast about unsuitable for drivers taller then the tallest of the two. That car was the March-Porsche 90P.

You are right on the weight limit and exotic materials. it doens't stop the teams if there is still an advantage to be gained, but it does make the need a bit less.

Henri

The torque curve will be dictated by the fuel flow limit. These engines will have a little more torque, but not much. If you have a fuel-flow limit, it doesn't make sense to shift at the upper rev limits if you have freedom of turbo boost.

Not really a problem, heat shielding is extremelly effective and even 100W of heating per runner would only heat the air by about 1°C at max power. Keeping wiring loom cool is more of an issue.

While I'm not against the turbos, I don't like those regulations at all. Using KERS as a starter motor is OK. I don't mind using it to power the car in the pitlane.

But 660 kg minimum car weight and 155 kg minimum engine weight - are they joking? The limit is already 40 kg too high, and they want to increase it? Ridiculous!!
If heavier drivers are a problem, than mandate a minimum driver weight of 75 or 80 KG. Lighter drivers must use ballast below their seats.
I understand that KERS currently doesn't make sense without such minimum weight increase. Well, if it doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense


Firstly, the V10 weighted around 90 kg about 10 years ago. The engiens could be a lot lighter than the current 95 kg and engine weight 25 years ago is no argument ;) Secondly the shouldn't mandate minimum KERS weight. The light the batteries, the better because this is a technology that can actually be transferred outside F1 - it's development should be promoted.

According to F1Fanatic:

Is this even possible? I mean they've already mandated every inch of the engine in the V8 regulations.. Silly, they should make the rules more open, not tighten them up when they are already too tight! Fuel flow limit should be enough.
And why the hell would they impose energy storage/harvesting limits?


They should just turn F1 into a single spec chassis series, instead of prolonging the process. Sadists.

If those engines won't have more constant power than the current ones I'll be outraged If the fuel flow limit will force drivers to save fuel instead of racing I'll be even more outraged.

Scraping ground effects for DRS and another downforce reduction is also stupid, but that's a different topic.

Edit:
I almost forgot: Fixed gear ratios? Am I dreaming?

Steping abit aside from the (always interesting, but sometimes dificult to follow) technical aspect, one of the things I have not yet been able to graps is customer engines.
Are we going to see engines with equal performance of the same brand or a return to the very detuned customer engines? Im not saying 100& parity but something along the lines of what is happening today.

And what is happening today?

Homologation?

Oops, it seems I hadn't got right the meaning of the post on first reading.
It appeared to me as if Red17 was implying current engines are of different grades, which is not the case IMO, although I've seen discussions about differences (small) in power and the manufacturer selecting the best from the batch for their own team.
I haven't seen any hint that with the new V6 engines the situation is going to change. Maybe the first year or two the manufacturers will have some more freedom to develop their engines towards reliability and approximately equal power output but with the current rules for a limited number per season (which number i going to decrease eventually) I can't see how lower grade engines can be supplied to a customer.

(It's another matter that I personally don't like so much restriction and endurance bias in F1)

Hopefully customer engines will be the same as the manufacturers ones. I believe the FIA has been ensuring that the some years now.

Yes, that was my idea, thank you for re-reading.

Well, I think current engines are probably the best in terms or parity since the old Cosworth days, sure the Ferrari engine on Kobayashi's car isnt as great as Massa's but it packs enough punch to have the team in good shape. The Renault units seems to be more «democratic», otherwise Red Bull would have not renewed their contract, Mercedes also seems to be handling McLaren with good units.

That leaves the question of where the non manufacturer engines like Cosworth and PURE lie, does it make sense to develop a «less expensive» unit that is not good enough?. Sure, this is Formula 1 and it's still about building the best of the rest but right now Cosworth is looking to be more of an entry engine rather than a «take more for less». But I hope they saved their old magic for the new unit.

As for the endurance part, I think teams threw it away. A couple seasons ago teams used to break a lot of engines, but I dont think anyone last year got a grid penalty for a new engine.
The engine limit makes sense in order to avoid the upper hand of wealthier outfits like Ferrari who can afford it.
I agree that it should be the best brains and the best skill. Funds are also precious, but it should be a less much influential factor.